Alpha, Beta & Omega (Social Hierarchy)

[RichardY]

Are Alpha and Beta personalities in some ways an expression of Collectivism or Tribalism? Is an Anarchist fundamentally an Omega type personality? In the absence of property rights wouldn't a hierarchy end up being established as people fight for dominance?

 

Alpha personalities (More K Selected); Donald Trump, Genghis Khan, Winston Churchill, Julius Caesar, Khan (Star Trek II)

Tend to have the most children or most invested in children. Most Aggressive or Assertive. More Alphas fiercer competition for resources, greater pressure to innovate.

 

Beta personalities (More R Selected); Neville Chamberlain

Tend to have some children. Most average people. More Betas, more resources available but less innovation.

 

Omega personalities; Isaac Newton, Angela Merkel(maybe Beta), Adolf Hitler, Nikola Tesla, Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs)

Tend to have the least children.

 

Omega Strategies

 

Control the herd - Identify the Alpha, usually male and influence his decisions, herd usually follows, example: Find Male sheep (Ram), lead rest of the lambs to the slaughter.

Be seen as Holier then thou - Head shaman of tribe, Pope, God King, Head of State and country as one in the same, be particularly skilled or seen as skilled/trustworthy (Conman).  

Pursue a personal interest (maybe science) - Ignore herd altogether. Risk of burning at the stake

Remain out of sight - Let tribe kill each other off in times of conflict. Buy up real estate or assets  on the cheap.

Destroy Hierarchy - Create more Omegas and hopefully avoid mob justice, replace with Heterarchy (e.g Wikipedia, ok for the cost right?) based more on merit. 

Cooperate with other Omegas - Difficult as relatively few(varied interests), easier perhaps with Internet.

 

 

Agree, Disagree any thoughts? Anyone know any useful books on social hierarchy? 

 

[dsayers]

In the absence of property rights wouldn't a hierarchy end up being established as people fight for dominance?

Dominance of what? If an absence of property rights were possible, there would be no property to dominate.

 

Also, I think you'd benefit from defining your terms.

[flazak]

IMHO they are all personality traits that stem from an instinct to protect their families or their interests at whatever cost. These traits are reflected in the mental and physical makeup of the person.

 

In the absence of property rights I believe we would all act in our own interests which includes the protection of people we care about, it would lead to every man/group/culture/tribe for himself, chaotic springs to mind, but eventually the best group 'wins' 

Dominance of what? If an absence of property rights were possible, there would be no property to dominate.

 

Also, I think you'd benefit from defining your terms.

In an absence of property rights maybe there would be a fight to establish new rights? Which ever group comes out on top determines the new rights? Perhaps thats what is meant, a fight for dominance to establish new property rights? I'm not sure

[flazak]

Thanks for mentioning Neville Chamberlain, I need to learn more about what happened. Before I start to read more about him I want to say that he was only doing what he thought was right and he was trying to protect his country without bloodshed. A huge war lingered in the memory of all politicians in Britain (and France) and I believe he tried to do all he could to avoid it happening again, he thought he was doing the right thing but Hitler was a new breed of dictator... neither the politicians or the people realised how dangerous the beast was that they had unleashed during and after WW1. Also... Stalin.

[RichardY]

Dominance of what? If an absence of property rights were possible, there would be no property to dominate.

 

Also, I think you'd benefit from defining your terms.

 

Resources; best land, more favourable climates not too hot or cold, best hunting or fishing grounds. I'd say sex slavery as well, such as in the founding of Rome or present day ISIS territory.

 

Alpha the most able hunter, warrior, or other professional. Someone important to the survival of a group or of high social status. Usually possessing a high standard of physical fitness and Intelligence as well as being competitive.

 

Beta the runner-up to the Alpha.

 

Omega someone not part of the hierarchy within a tribe or country, does not accept or abide by some or most the laws of the society.

Thanks for mentioning Neville Chamberlain, I need to learn more about what happened. Before I start to read more about him I want to say that he was only doing what he thought was right and he was trying to protect his country without bloodshed. A huge war lingered in the memory of all politicians in Britain (and France) and I believe he tried to do all he could to avoid it happening again, he thought he was doing the right thing but Hitler was a new breed of dictator... neither the politicians or the people realised how dangerous the beast was that they had unleashed during and after WW1. Also... Stalin.

 

I think that's fair comment. Given the horrific bloodshed most people would not have wanted another World War Germany included, sometimes its tough to hear from more of an Alpha type personality what needs to be done or the potential threats from giving in, a pint of sweat now or a gallon of blood later. I wouldn't say that Hitler was a new breed of dictator, plenty examples in the past of one tribe exterminating the other.

[flazak]

I think Hitler was a new breed of dictator to people living in 30s Britain, same with Stalin. I think the establishment in the allied countries just didn't understand them or the threat they posed. If they did understand then they preferred to bury their heads in the sand rather than confront them but that brings me back to WW1 being in everyones mind and the horrors of that war. It was a shitty situation!!

 

Theres no way you get elected by anyone if you are preaching the need to go to war AGAIN 

[dsayers]

Resources; best land

So... property and property. But you said in the absence of property rights. This means my inquiry stands.

 

The very act of dominating assumes property rights to be valid.

[Natalia]

I don’t think you’re using those terms as people know them.

 

If an absence of property rights were possible, there would be no property to dominate.

In the absence of property rights people would secure their “property” by means of force and influence, and thereby property would only exist inasmuch as they can secure it.

 

Now that I think about it, that’s very related to how people come to statist power.

[Lars]

In the absence of property rights wouldn't a hierarchy end up being established as people fight for dominance?

Do you mean "in the absence of universal ethics"?

 

Our exclusive claim over personal property is attached to our status as moral agents, it cannot be rightfully removed or denied under a universal system of ethics. Threat-based hierarchies turn ownership into an arbitrary self-righteous privilege.

[RichardY]

 

Do you mean "in the absence of universal ethics"?

 

Yes that's it, but between whom? What I was thinking of is how one tribe say the Mongols lead by Genghis, or the Baath party lead by Saddam may not recognise the status of another tribe to those resources influenced by a nomadic lifestyle or perception of the other tribe as sub-human, or the variability of pasture land from season to season, tragedy of the Commons Scenario (Unowned Resources or Land). Instead of outright exterminating the other tribes they instead ask for tribute or the right to dictate who gets what (recognise property rights). The second option is still optional though, there might even be arguments within a tribe. 

 

So... property and property. But you said in the absence of property rights. This means my inquiry stands.

 

The very act of dominating assumes property rights to be valid.

 

I also said that a hierarchy would end up being established, a food-chain or pecking order.

 

Yes I agree in the absence of Property Rights, Property would not exist. However, someone can still exert dominance within a herd or over nature ( maybe control) . Establish a hierarchy within the herd to determine property rights, who gets what, who eats last. I'm not sure the extent to what extent two bears or wolf packs fighting over territory recognise property rights, maybe they do, but Property Rights can only exist when there are at least two competing entities.  

 

Which makes me think, if everybody cooperates towards a common goal why would you need property rights? Different levels of ability and the fact people have opposing goals (Competition).

 

The Omega Man

 

"There can be only one." Highlander.

 

Or the joker off batman, the one with the bank robbery at the beginning, with the Joker persuading the gang to kill each other off so he gets all the money. More recently the Hatton Garden heist, the guy that got away known only as "Basil" separated himself from the group, both from the people he was stealing from and the people doing the stealing.

 

Our exclusive claim over personal property is attached to our status as moral agents, it cannot be rightfully removed or denied under a universal system of ethics. Threat-based hierarchies turn ownership into an arbitrary self-righteous privilege.

 

Excellent way of putting it. But, what if you don't know the person is moral? Maybe they do some good mutually beneficial acts as a form of moral camouflage, what if their long term goal is something else?Perhaps they're after some form of technology that may extend life or cause its destruction. Kind of a Grail Quest. 

 

[ValueOfBrevity]

Are Alpha and Beta personalities in some ways an expression of Collectivism or Tribalism? Is an Anarchist fundamentally an Omega type personality? In the absence of property rights wouldn't a hierarchy end up being established as people fight for dominance?

 

Alpha personalities (More K Selected); Donald Trump, Genghis Khan, Winston Churchill, Julius Caesar, Khan (Star Trek II)

Tend to have the most children or most invested in children. Most Aggressive or Assertive. More Alphas fiercer competition for resources, greater pressure to innovate.

 

Beta personalities (More R Selected); Neville Chamberlain

Tend to have some children. Most average people. More Betas, more resources available but less innovation.

 

Omega personalities; Isaac Newton, Angela Merkel(maybe Beta), Adolf Hitler, Nikola Tesla, Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs)

Tend to have the least children.

 

Omega Strategies

 

Control the herd - Identify the Alpha, usually male and influence his decisions, herd usually follows, example: Find Male sheep (Ram), lead rest of the lambs to the slaughter.

Be seen as Holier then thou - Head shaman of tribe, Pope, God King, Head of State and country as one in the same, be particularly skilled or seen as skilled/trustworthy (Conman).  

Pursue a personal interest (maybe science) - Ignore herd altogether. Risk of burning at the stake

Remain out of sight - Let tribe kill each other off in times of conflict. Buy up real estate or assets  on the cheap.

Destroy Hierarchy - Create more Omegas and hopefully avoid mob justice, replace with Heterarchy (e.g Wikipedia, ok for the cost right?) based more on merit. 

Cooperate with other Omegas - Difficult as relatively few(varied interests), easier perhaps with Internet.

 

 

Agree, Disagree any thoughts? Anyone know any useful books on social hierarchy? 

In an anarchistic society, people associate voluntarily. Avoiding mob justice is as simple as signing a defense contract.

[RichardY]

Theres no way you get elected by anyone if you are preaching the need to go to war AGAIN 

 

Of course, but I'm not sure Hitler said if you Elect me I will invade Poland, France, Denmark, Russia, Greece etc.

 

Instead I think he went along the lines of. The German people have been enslaved by the Treaty of Versailles. If you elect me I will remedy the injustice, I will make the German people great again, the banker's and other undesirables had their chance to be just, but they have drank the life blood out of Germany and clamped our children in chains. The only answer to this is National Socialism, Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles in die Welt!

 

Currying sympathy from an injustice and exploiting it to his whim through collectivism. The leaders through hierarchy are mostly responsible, not the people.

[dsayers]

In the absence of property rights people would secure their “property” by means of force

Meaning using their bodies, which is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

[neeeel]

Meaning using their bodies, which is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

 

I dont think this follows. animals use their bodies , and you dont extend property rights to them. I also think it would be possible to "use your body" without it meaning the automatic acceptance/proof of property rights

[Natalia]

Meaning using their bodies, which is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

Theoretically, yes. However, it’s not as if most people would think that through, much less change their behavior according to it. Some people would simply have influence enough to have armies granting their wishes; others would pragmatically not even own themselves (slaves).

[Lars]

Theoretically, yes. However, it’s not as if most people would think that through, much less change their behavior according to it. Some people would simply have influence enough to have armies granting their wishes; others would pragmatically not even own themselves (slaves).

It is certainly possible to reject reality, though we should avoid granting philosophical consideration to the machinations of irrationality (if we wish to maintain consistency and minimize empty discussion).

[Natalia]

It is certainly possible to reject reality, though we should avoid granting philosophical consideration to the machinations of irrationality (if we wish to maintain consistency and avoid empty discussion).

I see. Although I don’t fully agree, since I believe people should be considered in their whole reality, else discussions seem more like role play. But don't mind me. I’m terribly new to this.

[Lars]

I see. Although I don’t fully agree, since I believe people should be considered in their whole reality, else discussions seem more like role play. But don't mind me. I’m terribly new to this.

What do you mean by "considered in their whole reality"?

[Natalia]

What do you mean by "considered in their whole reality"?

We can't forget that we often act irrationally.

[dsayers]

I dont think this follows. animals use their bodies , and you dont extend property rights to them.

This is true. However, the point of contention wasn't what animals would do in the absence of property rights.

 

We can't forget that we often act irrationally.

This is no different from Lars's point that people can reject reality. The fact that we can act irrationally doesn't alter the truth value of the objective claim that 2+2=4. Just as to does not alter the truth value of the objective claim that the act of domination requires property rights to be valid.

[Natalia]

This is no different from Lars's point that people can reject reality. The fact that we can act irrationally doesn't alter the truth value of the objective claim that 2+2=4. Just as to does not alter the truth value of the objective claim that the act of domination requires property rights to be valid.

In theory, yes. But I believe I would be correct in assuming that OP was more concerned with practical results instead of logic when he said “In the absence of property rights wouldn't a hierarchy end up being established as people fight for dominance?”

[neeeel]

This is true. However, the point of contention wasn't what animals would do in the absence of property rights.

 

 

No , but my point was that your reasoning doesnt hold. using your body != acceptance of property rights

[dsayers]

No , but my point was that your reasoning doesnt hold. using your body != acceptance of property rights

You said that. And then I said "This is true. However, the point of contention wasn't what animals would do in the absence of property rights." The question was about people, so the capability of reason was assumed. There is nothing productive in pointing out that the capability of reason is a requisite since "people" denotes as much.

 

OP was more concerned with practical results instead of logic when he said “In the absence of property rights wouldn't a hierarchy end up being established as people fight for dominance?”

OP essentially said, "Suppose a world without cars. What would a Ford Focus cost?" I've merely pointed out that a Ford Focus is a car. If you want to entertain a world without cars, you cannot then assume a car. Just as you cannot suppose a world without property rights and then assume property rights.

[neeeel]

You said that. And then I said "This is true. However, the point of contention wasn't what animals would do in the absence of property rights." The question was about people, so the capability of reason was assumed. There is nothing productive in pointing out that the capability of reason is a requisite since "people" denotes as much.

 

 

Sorry , I dont understand. I havent mentioned absence of property rights. 

 

your claim was 

 

Meaning using their bodies, which is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

 

 

Which to me, indicates that you believe that things that use their bodies, are, by that very use of bodies, accepting/proving property rights.

 

I showed that this was false, because animals use their bodies and that isnt the acceptance/proof of property rights.

 

so your claim cannot be true, that  that using bodies means the acceptance/proof of property rights. There must be some other variable.

 

If you want to bring reason into it, thats fine, but you now need to show how the use of reason is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

[EclecticIdealist]

I find it really interesting that there are some people who are unable to conceive of a world without property rights. Rights are merely claims of exclusive control that are expected to be recognized and respected by other members of society according to common, mutual agreement to adhere to the NAP.  If no claim of exclusive control is made or recognized, then control is maintained by superior ability, or not at all.

[RichardY]

I find it really interesting that there are some people who are unable to conceive of a world without property rights. Rights are merely claims of exclusive control that are expected to be recognized and respected by other members of society according to common, mutual agreement to adhere to the NAP.  If no claim of exclusive control is made or recognized, then control is maintained by superior ability, or not at all.

 I just think of the Film "I am legend" starring Will Smith. Or "The Omega Man", "28 Days later", "Robinson Crusoe" or "Day of the Triffids".

[EclecticIdealist]

 I just think of the Film "I am legend" starring Will Smith. Or "The Omega Man", "28 Days later", "Robinson Crusoe" or "Day of the Triffids".

Perhaps I should rephrase.... conceive of a society without personal property rights. It's anarchy without NAP - the law of the jungle, i.e. might makes mine.

[RichardY]

It is certainly possible to reject reality, 

 

So basically Existentialism? How would I go about rejecting reality?

[dsayers]

I havent mentioned absence of property rights. 

You didn't have to. It is the premise of the thread you are posting in as evidenced by the opening post. My claim is true of people. Animals are not a subset of persons.

 

If you want to bring reason into it, thats fine, but you now need to show how the use of reason is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

You're conflating too much here. The capability of reason is a requisite of property rights/person. Once that is established, THEN the deliberate use of one's body is then a demonstration of property rights (which was my claim).

 

I apologize for my ambiguity. That the framing of the thread was exclusive to persons, I didn't think that understanding one's actions made one responsible for them would be a controversial position. In fact, as I sit here trying to think of how to explain it, it seems axiomatic to me. Animals operate on biological imperative alone. Humans as a species have the capacity for reason. That is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore, a human is responsible for their deliberate actions. They own themselves.

 

The premise of "persons dominating in the absence of property rights" is internally inconsistent was all I intended to contribute to the thread. I have yet to see OP revise his initial premise or otherwise discard the inquiry as invalid.

[neeeel]

 

 

The capability of reason is a requisite of property rights/person. Once that is established, THEN the deliberate use of one's body is then a demonstration of property rights (which was my claim).

 

 

How?

 

edit : to be clear, how does the establishment of reason, imply that the deliberate use of ones body is a demonstration of property rights?

[Lars]

So basically Existentialism? How would I go about rejecting reality?

Justifying your actions and/or beliefs in opposition to empirical evidence.

[RichardY]

Justifying your actions and/or beliefs in opposition to empirical evidence.

I would add to that, empirical evidence and reason. But the question remains unanswered, what if I wanted to reject reality and convince myself that I was living in the Star Trek Universe or that when eating broken glass to observers, to  me it was really fillet steak?

[Lars]

I would add to that, empirical evidence and reason. But the question remains unanswered, what if I wanted to reject reality and convince myself that I was living in the Star Trek Universe or that when eating broken glass to observers, to  me it was really fillet steak?

What is reason without empirical evidence?

 

I'm not sure how I failed to answer your question.

[RichardY]

Justifying your actions and/or beliefs in opposition to empirical evidence.

Is incidental.

 

Have you seen the Movie Shallow Hal staring Jack Black? I wouldn't mind a situation where my own perceptions of reality were different from other people's providing they were pleasurable. My question is How can I reject reality?